Bravus prepares himself for the flood of retractions and apologies...

[Amelia]

Quote:

Scientists and environmentalist have lied,that was pretty clear.

Lied? Or data interpreted in a way that meets their needs?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Scientists and environmentalist have lied,that was pretty clear.

Lied? Or data interpreted in a way that meets their needs?

Twisting data to meet a certain need and lying belong on the same shelf.

If their convictions were sincere there would not have been any need

[bonnie]

The following is pretty indicative of the conduct of the scientists involved in the e-mails that were hacked.If this isn't dishonest to you then we have a different understanding of what honesty means.

Global Warming With The Lid Off

Wall Street journal

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

View Full Image

climate

Associated Press

A satellite image of Tropical Storm Ida. Some climate researchers claim that an increase in tropical storms is proof of anthropogenic climate change.

climate

climate

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

Read a Selection of the Emails

Climate Science and Candor

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

[Neil D]

A lot of innuendo and opinion, and not much fact there, Bonnie..All of that is from the OPINION PAGE of the WSJ...Which only shows facts, right???? Not!

But of course, if innuendo and opinion were fact, you have lots of things to stand on...

[bonnie]

A lot of innuendo and opinion, and not much fact there, Bonnie..All of that is from the OPINION PAGE of the WSJ...Which only shows facts, right???? Not!

But of course, if innuendo and opinion were fact, you have lots of things to stand on...

You mean it is as slanted as salon?

That is hardly the only source.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

A lot of innuendo and opinion, and not much fact there, Bonnie..All of that is from the OPINION PAGE of the WSJ...Which only shows facts, right???? Not!

But of course, if innuendo and opinion were fact, you have lots of things to stand on...

You mean it is as slanted as salon?

That is hardly the only source.

And **I** used Salon when??? for what??? For that matter, Salon has an opinion page as well, which I *always* steer clear of....

And so, your point is .....????

Since you brought out the "You're an environmentalist, therefore anything that comes out of your mouth is a lie" aspersion toward Shane, it is incumbents upon you to prove your point....

And since this sort of stuff is obnoxious at best, it is best to keep this off the board. It does nothing to promote community...let alone, improve communication...

[bonnie]

You mean it is as slanted as salon?

That is hardly the only source.

[Neil D]

Bravus began this topic with a article from salon.

Quote:

Since you brought out the "You're an environmentalist, therefore anything that comes out of your mouth is a lie" aspersion toward Shane, it is incumbents upon you to prove your point....

I made no comment to or about Shane.Maybe you can quit the pretended outrage.

Bravus posted an article that was supposed to convince others to apologize.

There is little doubt that the scientists falsified data.That is lying so no I would not believe a word that comes out of the mouth of these scientists

[Guest]

You have told Shane that, because he is an enviromentalist, "nothing you say is valid"....that says volumes more about you than about Shane....

[bonnie]

Bravus in the first post in this topic leads you to this...

Bravus readies himself for the flood of retractions and apologies from climate skeptics

Filed under:

* General

— Bravus @ 10:26 am

Newspaper retracts “climategate” story, months too late

From Salon

[bonnie]

This is kind of funny...

You have told Shane that, because he is an enviromentalist, "nothing you say is valid"....that says volumes more about you than about Shane....

Never said a word about Shane being a environmentalist. Not sure what the problem would be if I did. He says he is one.Neil doesn't sound like he believes Shane when he says he is an environmentalist.

[LifeHiscost]

"Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, causing it to scorch everyone with its fire. Everyone was burned by this blast of heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had control over all these plagues. They did not repent of their sins and turn to God and give him glory."

Revelation 16:8 NLT

I suppose trying to attach blame is not as important as seeing the reality and unless the angel is only symbolic, we can always blame him. However my understanding of the tragedies that happen upon the earth is that when they don't occur God intervenes for the sake of His people while when He looses them it is a result of having sinned away the day of grace.

After all, do we believe God to be sovereign or not?

Blessings!

[Neil D]

Richard,

Technically, you haven't mentioned my name and therefore are not talking to me either!

Connect the dots, Richard...please.....context is everything here....

Bonnie quotes from Shane, she replys in a derogatory manner, and she's trying to excuse herself when confronted... On this board, this is not acceptable behavior....

[bonnie]

Richard,

Technically, you haven't mentioned my name and therefore are not talking to me either!

Connect the dots, Richard...please.....context is everything here....

Bonnie quotes from Shane, she replys in a derogatory manner, and she's trying to excuse herself when confronted... On this board, this is not acceptable behavior....

There isn't an excuse being offered.I was not implying or saying anything about Shane's honesty.I would have said "Shane I don't believe you"

I typically do not imply but state it directly..Keep hammering away at it.It will not become true because you keep repeating the same accusation.Except maybe in your mind.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Bonnie quotes from Shane, she replys in a derogatory manner, and she's trying to excuse herself when confronted... On this board, this is not acceptable behavior....

As moderator:

I read the entire thread.

Bonnie wrote:

"If you feel you need to lie or exaggerate to convince others you are correct,nothing you say is valid.

Most that do not believe in man made global warming have always held the position that the 'scientific data' was not correct or honest."

Shane said: "I am not sure what Bonnie was trying to say but I don't think she was accusing me of lying or exaggerating. I think she was referring to the scientists of the Climategate scandal. I am not sure."

It is clear to me that Bonnie was talking about the fact that the scientific data was not correct or honest.

Neil D, you told Bonnie:

Quote:

You have told Shane that, because he is an enviromentalist, 'nothing you say is valid'....that says volumes more about you than about Shane....

The context shows Bonnie is not telling Shane that nothing he says is valid. She is saying that nothing those scientists say is valid because they were not being honest with the scientific data.

Bonnie's explanation of what she had said is reasonable:

"There is little doubt that the scientists falsified data. That is lying so no I would not believe a word that comes out of the mouth of these scientists."

[Bravus]

I agree with that. Neil, I think you might have misread on this one.

John317, I would like to just clarify that it's bonnie's *opinion* that the scientific data were inaccurate, not a fact. The facts show that her opinion is inaccurate.

[bonnie]

I agree with that. Neil, I think you might have misread on this one.

John317, I would like to just clarify that it's bonnie's *opinion* that the scientific data were inaccurate, not a fact. The facts show that her opinion is inaccurate.

No the facts do not show I was inaccurate in believing that data was falsified.Many that have taken the time to read the information have come to the same conclusion many in the scientific field have.

I think at this time there are more in the scientific field that do not believe in man made global warming.

It is only your opinion that I am wrong in mine.Unless you have far more accurate data than the scientists in question

[Neil D]

Bonnie's explanation of what she had said is reasonable:

"There is little doubt that the scientists falsified data. That is lying so no I would not believe a word that comes out of the mouth of these scientists."

My appologies to Bonnie for misreading the thread...

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: John317

Bonnie's explanation of what she had said is reasonable:

"There is little doubt that the scientists falsified data. That is lying so no I would not believe a word that comes out of the mouth of these scientists."

My apologies to Bonnie for misreading the thread...

Thank you,apology accepted. No harm done

[there buster]

Actually, it's the Times retraction that is based on faulty-- and largely missing data

retraction not based on data

[karl]

But who is claiming that there will be a large reduction in Amazon rainfall? That is a model prediction, and not even one that appears in all of the models. Dr. Lewis says:

Indeed, some leading models of future climate change impacts show a die-off of more than 40% Amazon forests, due to projected decreases in rainfall.

This, of course, also means that some leading models do not show a die-off. Even the models don’t all agree with the IPCC claim.

However, all of this, all of the claims and counterclaims, and the models, and Dr. Lewis’s letter, and the cited scientific documents, all run aground on one ugly fact:

The data shows no change in Amazon rainfall in a century of measurements.

[LifeHiscost]

The data shows no change in Amazon rainfall in a century of measurements.

Did I miss something? My understanding was this was a thread about false claims as to global warming. If that is the case how does one explain the pictures from space that reveal the significant receding of the ice shelf at the pole, not to mention the loss of habitat for the polar bears?

Cheers!

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

The data shows no change in Amazon rainfall in a century of measurements.

Did I miss something? My understanding was this was a thread about false claims as to global warming. If that is the case how does one explain the pictures from space that reveal the significant receding of the ice shelf at the pole, not to mention the loss of habitat for the polar bears?

Cheers!

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. Antarctic sea ice is growing also.

The record cold temps (since thirty years ago) which were recorded last winter are not just a blip. We can expect colder winters for the next twenty years. This is a recurring cycle. Let me remind you that it has been cold enough in the last two centuries for Niagara Falls to freeze solid. That's cold.

Photo url below:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mtpulaskiil.com/mtpulaskiilWEBsite/Photos/NiagaraFalls1911/niagarafalls3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mtpulaskiil.com/mtpulaskiilWEBsite/Photos/NiagaraFalls1911/niagara_falls.htm&h=585&w=450&sz=82&tbnid=1CLuA5f4D6mjcM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bniagara%2Bfalls%2Bfrozen&usg=__XjwfIlXATA6PUTqMcaR8Q_PVEw4=&sa=X&ei=52EoTOvtKoH98Ab-86SACA&ved=0CCsQ9QEwBA

[Neil D]

A cursory view of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center with the LINK HERE

June 8, 2010

Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May

In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summer—that will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles) for the month of May, 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was -68,000 kilometers (-26,000 square miles) per day, almost 50% more than the average rate of -46,000 kilometers (18,000 square miles) per day. This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.

Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea, and below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay.

So, Karl, you were saying...?

[karl]

If you are actually intersted, Neil, read this and get back to me.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/

You must actually examine the data rather than merely looking at the conclusions drawn by those who are funded by the promoters of global government (er, I mean warming.)